8. And, That's the main reason gun culture is so attracted to them.

216. I'm going to completely level with you.

That's not why people are attracted to them, at least not the vast majority. People who intend to cause mayhem and death, as well as career criminals, are of course going to use the best tool available.

Here's the part where I am going to completely level with you. Are you ready?

I've been around gun owners my whole life. By and large, they are good, solid people who represent no risk to anyone.

However.

I've known more than a few around whom I was just not comfortable. They tended to acquire lots of guns and practiced unsafe behaviors with them.

I noticed, amateur psychologist that I am, that they shared a certain personality trait, or flaw, if you will.

They were loud, boastful, and tended towards exaggeration and bluster. They were always talking about how they were going to do this or that to anyone who crossed them. They had fucked more girls than you. Their car was faster than yours. They had beaten up so and so for looking at them the wrong way. They had been aggrieved by their bosses. Most of it was pure bullshit, but I think they really believed it.

A few of them were banned from our town shooting range (some by me when I sat on the board) for unsafe behaviors with guns. We were very nervous about crossing these guys.

I don't know if there's a name for this personality disorder, but I think it is a disorder. Lots of people who don't have guns also exhibit this behavior.

I wish there was some way to screen for this trait, and prevent these types of personalities from acquiring weapons. My guess is that maybe 5% of the people who joined the gun club were thusly unsuited. We had over 200 members when I was involved, and maybe 6 or 7 of this type.

I don't think it's fair to deny permits to 200 people because 10 of them are loud-mouthed asses, and maybe .0001 of them goes off and gets into trouble with his permit.

6. you get a paycheck, don't you?

i'd say "you're too dumb to think for yourself" is a pretty big insult. careful, i might use it on you...

what kind of a-hole would put this crap below on the internets? it certainly is insulting.
also a loaded question with an answer which is complete crap.
and, no, i won't put a link, google- nra ila second amendment, its right there for any little kid to see

MIND POLLUTION

9. Shouldn`t we at least try some gun control to see if it works?
We have. Over the past century, all types of gun control laws have been implemented in different parts of the United States. Everything from purchase restrictions to complete gun bans has been tried. These laws have not worked, and in some cases have had the opposite effect from what was intended.

Some big cities have strict gun laws. New York City has very strict gun laws, more strict than the rest of the state of New York. In spite of this, New York has always had significantly higher violent crime rates. Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Ill. have banned the ownership of handguns, and both these cities have much higher violent crime rates than the surrounding areas.

States such as Illinois and New York have gun owner licensing. Other states, such as Hawaii, have gun registration. However, none of these laws led to reductions in violent crime rates. And that is the real test of gun control laws. Do crime rates fall after gun laws are passed? The clear answer is no. Gun control has been tested, and it has failed the test.

23. NYC is having its lowest murder rate this year

...since accurate record keeping began in 1963. That is 50 years. The rate is down 82% since 1990 and us way below the second best year of 2009. A murder rate if 414 per year in a city proper of 8,000,000 is not bad at all - now imagine the rate if you stay in Manhattan south if 96th street. A very safe place.

**
Nothing spurs talk of gun-control legislation quite like a highly publicized crime committed with the aid of a handgun.Such was the case 100 years ago this month, when a brazen murder committed near Gramercy Park led to the enactment a few months later of New York State’s landmark Sullivan Law, which required police-issued licenses for those wishing to possess concealable firearms and made carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon a felony (pdf).
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/100-years-ago-the-shot-that-spurred-new-yorks-gun-control-law/

66. Take a look at El Paso, TX.

NYC's murder rate with your number is 5.175 per 100K people. El Paso had a murder peak in 2012 with 22 murders in a city of 800K which gives a rate of 2.75 per 100K, much lower than NYC of which you are so proud. El Paso has more guns than people and sits on the Mexican border, a major conduit for drugs and people smuggling.

132. Interesting take on El Paso in this article discussing how

towns with a high concentration of immigrants can often be very safe (much to Jan Brewer's chagrin):

"El Paso is among the safest big cities in America. For the better part of the last decade, only Honolulu has had a lower violent crime rate (El Paso slipped to third last year, behind New York). Men's Health magazine recently ranked El Paso the second "happiest" city in America, right after Laredo, Texas—another border town, where the Hispanic population is approaching 95 percent."

201. When one list a rate, population is automatically taken into consideration.

jSince you don't seem to understand rates, NYC had 414 murders with a population of about 8 million which is a rate of 5.175
(414/8,000,000)X100,000 = 5.175 El Paso has had 22 murders and a population of about 800,000. (22/800,000)X100,000 = 2.75

Yes, NYC is doing well, but El Paso is doing better, and has more guns than people.

112. he's ON THE BOARD OF THE NRA FOR GOD'S SAKE

114. i apologize in advance if you are a respectable lady, but, you asked

AnotherMcIntosh (5,226 posts)
2. You say, "the gun lobby is lying to you." Not to me. They, whoever they are, don't even contact me.
There's also nothing to indicate that they engage in mindless and insulting name-calling.

Hunting is undeniably an outlet for the Nuge’s animal instincts. “I hump the wild to take it all in,” writes Nugent, “there is no bag limit on happiness.” Ted and his trusty Labrador retriever, Gonzo the Wonderdog, get a “full predator spiritual erection” from pursuing “bear, lions, coons, housecats, escaped chimps, small children, scared women, and everything else that can be chased and/or hunted.” He also takes plenty of predatory digs at those he considers to be his human prey: He names a wild boar after Janet Reno (“the only thing missing was the purple dress and he-man haircut”), and describes the same boar as emitting a “Courtney Love-like squeal,” while the remaining boars mill around like “a throng of stoned, lost Grateful Dead fans.”

205. you are insulting human beings by giving him that status!

The New York Post attempted to contact Nugent for a response but was unsuccessful. Moderators at Nugent’s official forum deleted the only thread asking about the topic as evidenced by the forum’s search giving a file not found error for the matched thread.

i guess he was pissed at CL for calling him out on national radio as a pedophile??

Good call, Mitt. Great influence on your sons, including Tagg who tweeted:

“Ted Nugent endorsed my Dad today. Ted Nugent? How cool is that?! He joins Kid Rock as great Detroit musicians on team Mitt!”

124. A high percentage of those murders are a direct result of our failed War on Drugs. ...

Chicago gang violence shows no signs of stopping

December 10, 2012 7:26 PM

(CBS News) CHICAGO - There is a war going on -- not overseas, but right here on the streets of America. A gang war has taken over parts of Chicago.

Over the weekend, 14 people were shot. Two were killed.

So far this year, there have been more than 2,364 shootings and 487 homicides.

CBS News National Correspondent Dean Reynolds rode along with Commander Leo Schmitz of Chicago Police Department's 7th district. The area is a gang-related swath of the city's South Side. They started to drive as children were leaving school for the day.

"When you have them coming out of school, and there's any kind of gang conflicts, you've got a mix like fire and gasoline," Schmitz said.

I suspect we will spend a lot of time in the near future debating about reinstating another assault weapons ban and little time considering revising our current laws on illegal drugs. We may end up with another watered down AWB. Even if we were able to pass a law banning all semi-auto firearms and were able to confiscate them, the drugs gangs would have little problem smuggling weapons in from nations where they obtain their drugs. Consequently kids would continue to die in the crossfire between competing gangs.

133. so what? who said anything about drugs? they don't shoot each other with drugs..spin off!

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.

150. Pass a law banning and confiscating all firearms in our nation and watch what will happen. ...

Mexico has very strong gun laws and yet the Mexican drug cartels have fully automatic firearms which do not come from our nation.

AK-47

The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle, first developed in the USSR by Mikhail Kalashnikov. It is officially known as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова. It is also known as a Kalashnikov, an "AK", or in Russian slang, Kalash

***snip***

To fire, the operator inserts a loaded magazine, pulls back and releases the charging handle, and then pulls the trigger. In semi-automatic, the firearm fires only once, requiring the trigger to be released and depressed again for the next shot. In full-automatic, the rifle continues to fire automatically cycling fresh rounds into the chamber, until the magazine is exhausted or pressure is released from the trigger. As each bullet travels through the barrel, a portion of the gases expanding behind it is diverted into the gas tube above the barrel, where it impacts the gas piston. The piston, in turn, is driven backward, pushing the bolt carrier, which causes the bolt to move backwards, ejecting the spent round, and chambering a new round when the recoil spring pushes it forward....emphasis added

***snip***

In Mexico, the AK-47 is known as "Cuerno de Chivo" (literally "Ram's Horn") and is one of the weapons of choice of Mexican drug cartels. It is sometimes mentioned in Mexican folk music lyrics....emphasis addedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

These gangs also have far more powerful weaponry that you can't buy in Mom and Pop gun stores in the U.S.

When a Mexican SWAT team stopped a stolen Cadillac van in the border city of Piedras Negras, it was not a surprise when they were greeted by a tirade of bullets as the criminals blasted and ran. But after they kicked open the trunk, the officers realized they could have been victims of more catastrophic firepower. The gunmen had been in possession of an arsenal of weapons that included three Soviet-made antitank rockets complete with an RPG-7 shoulder-fired launcher. If the criminals had got a rocket off, they could easily have blown the SWAT vehicle to pieces. RPG-7s can also take out helicopters and were used in the Black Hawk Down episode in Somalia in 1993.

The rockets, found on Saturday, are part of an increasingly destructive array of weaponry wielded by Mexican drug cartels, like the feared Zetas, in reaction to attacks on them by police and soldiers. While security forces have taken down several key cartel bosses this year, gunmen have struck back, setting off five car bombs, hundreds of fragmentation grenades and several shoulder-fired rockets. Soldiers even seized one homemade three-ton tank with a revolving gun turret. When Mexican marines on Oct. 7 claimed to have killed Zetas leader Heriberto Lazcano, he was also alleged to be found with an RPG-7. (Lazcano’s corpse was stolen from the morgue, and the Zetas are now believed to be led by his No. 2, Miguel Treviño.)
http://world.time.com/2012/10/25/mexicos-drug-lords-ramp-up-their-arsenals-with-rpgs/

And yes, firearms would be much easier to smuggle than tons of marijuana.

227. many people here on DU don't wanna hear your nonsense

you forgot a part-
Feinstein possessed a concealed handgun permit in the early 70's "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- 27 April 1995

She is opposed by gun rights organizations, such as the NRA, who say her proposals on gun control are unconstitutional.
But I have little worry that it will happen anytime during my lifetime.

33. How about this, Slick?

Every time a gun is used to kill an innocent human, it's murder. Every time a murder occurs, the blood is squarely on the hands of the fucking NRA and its blind followers who cheer this madness and disavow any responsibility for their fucking guns and the carnage they cause.

Yes, it is easy for "cold dead hands" lunatics to "dismiss (any) findings on their face," because they only care about their fucking guns, and their pathetic 2nd Amendment so-called right to pollute our society with 300 million fucking guns and the highest gun death rate in the world.

Go back to whatever site the NRA/Gungeon crowd of buttwipes recruited you from.

81. Do you get off on stalking me?

11. I'm still not against guns as a whole, but I am against

unfettered ownership, storage and the use of them. I'm for a well regulated use of guns, which means that not every one will be able to own and use one and those who do will be able to own and use them under limited circumstances.

41. Weasel wording, as the OP suggested.

I am not a hard-core anti-gun zealot, but I do not delude myself into thinking that guns are entertainment.

Yes, not all killing is murder, and I was careful in my post not to use the word "murder". I know that guns are used to wage war, and that is not murder....but is still a horror. I do not know anyone personally who target shoots for recreation and competition only...they are also hunters (but I give you that it is possible there are some who do this, although they could easily find another pastime). I know guns are used for hunting, and in this day-and-age, this is not for sustenance but just the thrill of the kill. I know that guns are kept for protection, but that does not mean that the intent is not to kill.

For the record, I have a handgun for protection....although I am not sure that it is the smartest move. And I am aware that if I were to use it, I would be taking a life. In my eyes, killing. In the eyes of the person slain, murder. It is all perspective.

45. Good post.

I would point out, though, that if you do have to use your handgun for self-defense, odds are you won't be killing anyone. You certainly have to behave as if that will occur, since there's still a far-from-remote chance. But even leaving aside defensive usages in which the assailant elects not to continue because of the sight of the firearm (my one DGU was like that, actually), only about one in five non-suicide gunshot wounds are fatal. Modern trauma medicine borders on the miraculous.

My own firearms are for either self-protection or for competitive target shooting. I shoot the former weapons more because I believe it's my responsibly to be in very good practice if I'm going to reply on a firearms for this purpose (and because I enjoy shooting). I haven't been doing a lot of competition shooting lately. I haven't hunted since I was 13 years old, when Dad and I more-or-less simultaneously decided we'd really rather hunt with cameras.

60. Good on ya!

I'm probably too small for that to be much of a threat to anyone (although there's the "holy shit, she looks crazy...I'm outta here" factor...), but I do think most burglars want to part of a confrontation, armed or otherwise.

82. Nope.

I accept that it's the higher probability, but any burglar in my home (or attempting to gain entrance, for that matter) while I'm inside will face my 1911. They won't get shot* if they do absolutely nothing to endanger my life and health, but they will face the possibility.

* as mentioned upthread, the one DGU of my life (so far and hopefully ever played out like that: no shots fired

68. Then I misread your OP and apologize.

Although I think semi-autos are fine, but lets limit the magazine capacity to 5, 6, or 7 rounds. No grandfathering. Turn them all in.

If you can't defend yourself with 7 rounds, then you need more training. In fact, the only time a gun should be even brandished is when there is an immediate and grave danger to life and limb. I would never pull to shoot some kid robbing a Quickie mart.

71. You were lucky.

I can easily find news stories of people killed by intruders. In fact, in recent years there have been two couple murdered in their homes by intruders in my small town of 2,000. One couple was stabbed to death, the other couple was bludgeoned to death.

I choose not to trust to luck and be ready for the worst, while hoping that the worst never happens.

138. Meh, still wouldn't want to spend my Saturday nite having a 9mm Black Talon picked out of my spine.

Sometimes shooting victims from medium bore rounds are so maimed that they wish they were dead, especially if they're hit near the spine. Which is why one should be absolutely certain that they could shoot an attacker or intruder before arming oneself.

I read quite a few books by Massad Ayoob back in the day, but the one I remember most vividly is "In the Gravest Extreme", where he tells you in great detail what will happen to you even if commit a justifiable shooting.

You'll be arrested and handcuffed.
You'll be charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon.
You'll be taken to a jail cell and be deprived of your freedom.
You'll burn through your life savings retaining an attorney to defend yourself.

That's what will happen in Massachusetts. Your mileage may vary. But shooting anyone, anywhere is a hell of a life-altering experience. About the only thing that would make it worthwhile is the possible knowledge that you indeed protected your family from a violent and possibly deadly assault.

209. Your welcome. I also happen to believe that the statistics do not accurately reflect how often

a handgun is used, without being fired, to dissuade someone from assaulting another, simply because to notify the police that you did in fact even brandish a pistol would be to get yourself arrested and imprisoned.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't report it to the cops, especially here in Massachusetts where the Districts Attorney are at open warfare with licensed gun owners. They lost the concealed carry battle, but openly declared their intentions to make life absolutely unbearable for CCW holders. I know of one CCW who did 6 months in Essex County for merely opening his jacket to show a pistol butt. This was in a bar, and was a very bad idea. He should have left the premises and taken his chances outside, where at least if he was pursued, he would have had a better case. We are NOT a stand your ground state. We are a Must Flee state.

215. Bravo on the marksmanship training, especially considering the circumstances under which you

received it.

I think I've posted here a few times regarding how difficult it is to hit something with a handgun even 15 to 20 feet away, especially in the higher calibers like .357 Mag. A friend of mine bought a small-frame magnum and I could not even shoot the damned thing. It was like having my hand whacked with a sledgehammer - literally excruciating. A really stupid, stupid pistol to carry. It was much more manageable in .38 special.

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I certainly do not worship guns in any sense of the word, but I do appreciate the engineering that goes into them. I used to enjoy some time at the rage, but ammo is now so expensive and I'm living on 1/4 of what I used to earn, so that's an activity I can't afford anymore. My guns are always secured in a sturdy safe with a combo lock that, after 20 years, only I still know how to open. I favor banning large-capacity magazines with prison sentences for those who do not turn them in. Any ban has to have teeth in it.

30. The sole reason for the existence of guns is truely as you say...

Guns are for killing.
Hunting is killing.
Target shooting is practice to be ready to use the gun for its purpose.
Self-defense is being ready to kill or threaten to kill.
Collecting is fascination with the "cool tool that kills".
2nd amendment is for state sponsored killing because they 'gots lots' of guns (sic)

Bullseye shooting is usually at ranges such as 25 or 50 yards. Defensive shooting is at far closer ranges such as 21 feet or less. Defense shooting In bullseye target shooting the use of the weapons sights is extremely important while in defensive shooting you might not have the opportunity to use your sights.

The object in using a firearm for self defense is not to kill but to stop an attack that would lead to you being seriously injured or dead. In most true life situations when the attacker realizes that you are armed he will break off his attack. If you do shoot an attacker with the typical handgun there is an excellent chance that he will survive.

75. when (or if) the upset over massacre(s) dies down here

the gungeoneers will go back to their normal mode of celebrating every use of firearms to kill other humans, every new deregulation of gun usage, every example of RKBA absolutists expressing their right to walk around like a goddamn hollywood cowboy in some grossly inappropriate place.

It is only when it becomes embarrassing to be so over the top in gun nuttery that the gungeoneers reign it in.

17. NRA doesn't care about the 2nd amendment

80. It's a 1-sentence amendment and they have managed to convince...

...hundreds of millions of people that it does not say what it says.

They ignore the entire first half which is about regulated bodies of armed men protecting STATE (nothing about individual) security. Then they use the modern, colloquial definition of "people" instead of the traditional, literal definition. "People" is not the plural of "person," it is a singular, collective noun like "group" or "army." There's nothing about individual rights in there.

130. But Hamitlon wrote in Federalist #28...

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Clearly there is some cherry-picking that can be done.

All my professors were of the opinion. Long before Heller, that the 2A conferred an individual right. Of course, I went to engineering school, but we did have a humanities requirement.

185. LOL

The cherry-picked excerpt you picked from 28 has nothing to do with the militia, instead it is a general hypothetical about states vs federal power. It says nothing remotely relating to the words in the 2nd Amendment.

Nice try. But NRA Talking Points fall apart. Always.

As for your anecdote about your professors' feelings about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it is simple hearsay and thus worthless. If you don't understand what that means, I'll illustrate it.

"I went to the greatest law school in history. All my professors were SCOTUS justices. They all agreed with me that the 2nd Amendment was about a collective right."

224. But surely you realize that President Obama has acknowledged that the 2A

confers an individual right? Surely you don't consider him a R/W fuck?

Look, I know this is a very very contentious debate. For the record, I strongly support an AWB and magazine capacity limits of 5 to 7 rounds, including limits on how many magazines one may possess. I am not what anyone would consider a 'gun nut'. I don't know if you support that, or if you favor total confiscation of all guns, but you should know that that just isn't going to happen. Never, ever, ever.

158. Like where else in the original Constitution or BOR? nt

173. Well sir, right in the 1A...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That, I believe, is clearly an individual right, i.e., not reserved to the states. When they mean the States, they say the States.

And here again in the 4A:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I also believe the word 'regulated' means exactly what it says. The gov can restrict the types or numbers of firearms that can be kept. So I have no problems with band on assault-style magazines or high capacity magazines.

"Regulated" refers to militias, not weapons or persons, although a militia is made out of persons and weapons.

There is a line of thinking that says that "people" in the original Constitution (We the people) and the BOR does not refer to everyone who lived in the new USA, but literally the persons who signed the DOI and the Constitution. In other words the white, Protestant, rich ruling class. It did not include women, non-property owners, non-Protestants (except for MD), and non-whites. Think on it. Are slaves part of "We the People?" Are Indians? Are Irish laborers? What about women who could not vote or own property in their own names? Are they part of "we the people?" Among actual historians who study colonial and post-colonial USA, the census is that those involved in the 2nd Continental Congress and the early Federal period saw the Revolution as removing one rich, white patriarchy--the king--and replacing him with themselves. It was not until the Jackson presidency that a lot of people thought that the USA should be democratic.

210. Respectfully disagree with this.

"And the people as a whole have a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, but individually, personas and houses can be searched on warrants. "

No, you - as an individual person, are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. The key word here is unreasonable. A warrant gives the government the right to stop you and search you, but the burden of evidence is on the government. There has to be an indication that you have committed, or are about to commit, a crime. You are completely free to go about your business without being hassled by the police. (As a practical matter, this is not entirely true for many minorities, but the authorities who hassle people because of their appearance are in violation of the law).

The point is, that the entire BoR restricts the government from infringing on the stated rights of individuals. When the Constitution means the States, it says States. When it means individuals, it says "the people".

At least that's my opinion. The SCOTUS agrees with me, at least for now. A future court could rule differently, but that is extremely unlikely due to the tremendous deference shown toward precedent. The only hope for people who wish to ban guns altogether is another amendment to repeal the 2 nd. And that's not bloody likely unless all the southern states secede. And we know how that ended the last time.

19. I strongly disagree about the relative merits of the respective research.

Not that the studies that end up with pro-gun-rights conclusions aren't often flawed in their data collection phase methodologies in the ways you assert. They frequently are. However, the anti-gun studies, while more often sound in data methodology, frequently break down in their analytic phase. That is to say, they are epistemologically weak: they do not rigorously support what they conclude that the data means. A common problem in science in general, actually...and a reason that the field of philosophy of science is making rapid inroads into the review process.

No one on either side is lying to me, I assure you. At least not successfully. This is what I do.

24. Not telling me a thing I don't already know.

I'm not arguing that the US doesn't have a problem with gun-related violence, despite that trend actually moving downward. It's still absurdly high. That wasn't remotely my point. My point was that shoddy research occurs frequently on both sides of the gun control debate.

84. normalize this

In America, over one dozen guns are legally sold every minute of every day.

same link.
The National Rifle Association is quick to associate more guns with less crime, saying that since the early ’90s, when many states relaxed their weapon laws, violent crime has dropped 70 percent. Despite the rampages on campuses and military bases, as well as the hail of gang bullets in Chicago that has killed over 200 so far this year, the national murder rate is at a 47-year-low.

But on the other side of the argument, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a non-profit organization, points out that Americans still kill each other with guns at a level that is staggering compared to the rest of humanity.

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

97. s'ok, flats..

The cities with the highest crime rates tend to have particularly high poverty rates, high unemployment and low median income. Two of the worst-off cities, Flint and Detroit, Mich., both have had well-publicized budget woes. Flint was taken over by an emergency city manager after failing to pay its bills in 2011. Detroit is facing similar budget problems and recently came to a temporary oversight agreement with the state.http://www.nbcnews.com/business/most-dangerous-cities-america-832351

134. I also wonder about the combination of our high demand and punitive penalties for drug use.

Lots of young minority males go to into prison as minor offenders and emerge as violent adults. I'd rather keep them out of prison in the first place by making more opportunities available for universal higher education and inner-city jobs programs. 'Course we seem to have pissed away a few trillion dollars on wars...

Do we have stats for how many gun deaths are due to gang/street violence vs daddy shooting little Billy because he jumped out and yelled "Surprise!", i.e., purely accidental?

Not that either is OK, but the causes are vastly different as should be the solutions.

27. Priceless.

Trust me, you shouldn't be making an issue of logic or philosophical principles to anyone. In any case, you certainly won't be doing so to me: welcome to ignore. I have zero patience with this sort of buffoonery these days.

39. It is, specifically, the irrational NRA gun cultism, that is the problem.

Not the hunters or plinkers or country people or ex-cops or military. There are rational conversations to be had about arms and the Constitution, and public safety.

What is getting in the way is the CRAZY TALK. LaPierre calling ATF jack-booted Nazis out to murder Americans. Claiming that registration is a government conspiracy to take guns.

All of those misleading / misused / deliberately misunderstood rhetorical nuggets about how we'd all just kill each other with steak knives and armed society is polite society and how crime goes down when you shoot people for stealing.

The whole NRA cult of crazy is built for one thing -- to SCARE people into BUYING lots of guns and lots of ammo.

First thing we do, we need to stuff that batshit organization into a hole and seal it up. The sportsmen and hunters and target shooters need to start over with a new organization that just cuts all the crazy right the fuck out.

43. Yessiree! You are correct, and well said.

48. +1000

Well said, and right on point. The NRA, and its right-wing lunatic fringe followers, ARE the problem in this country. We need to target politicians who have been "endorsed" by the NRA, for replacement on BOTH sides of the aisle at all levels of government. As long as the NRA buys and owns our politicians, they will continue to be a cancer on our society.

The last part of that sentence conjured up images of the fatal confrontations between officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Randy Weaver’s family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992 and with the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas in 1993.

169. bullshit

The word is commonly used in Britain as a synonym for totalitarianism, particularly fascism, although jackboots and similar types of footwear have been worn by various British regiments since the 18th century (see Wellington Boot, origins). Following the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared that the democratic rights of the Falkland Islanders had been assaulted, and would not surrender the islands to the Argentine "jackboot."

In 1995, National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Vice-president Wayne LaPierre sparked controversy when he referred to federal agents as "jackbooted government thugs"; the comment caused former U.S. President George H.W. Bush to cancel his lifetime membership in the organization. The resignation of so public a figure as Mr. Bush prompted an open letter from the association to the former president to be published in major newspapers; the letter included a litany of alleged and settled cases of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms abuses and an assertion that LaPierre and the NRA were merely borrowing a well-worn phrase uttered by other public figures in their calls for reform of the agency, among them Representative John Dingell of Michigan.

180. Really? My recollection was that it was the right that imploded

after Waco & Ruby Ridge. Militia types railed that Clinton and Janet Reno unfairly targeted a white supremacist and a gun-hording child molester with a Jesus complex, as I recall. Who "on the left" has compared ATF to Nazis?

The last part of that sentence conjured up images of the fatal confrontations between officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Randy Weaver’s family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992 and with the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas in 1993.

LaPierre’s use of the phrase “jack-booted government thugs” was his metaphorical way of likening BATF officials to....

69. People who believe their rights are being violated can be amazingly single minded and intense.

Most women believe they have a right to choose. Threaten those rights and they too can be as single minded as any gun owner.

The right to be married...you call it a "civil union" and still it cuts to the soul.

Rights are very personal and violation of them causes outrage and alienation and a feeling of not being respected by government.

I personally haven't needed the right to bear arms, to choose to have an abortion, or to marry someone of the same sex, but I can see the same passions within each community. Are they all crazy? I don't think so.

186. Most people realize that Constituttional rights are limited and regulated. Except the 2A folks.

The gun-rights advocates' response to the tragedies in the past couple of weeks has been more of the same: stonewalling. They have all the rights and yet they pretend they are being persecuted.

Those of us whose life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are at risk by the hobbies of gun-rights advocates should also be afforded the same leeway-- we are outraged and alienated, and the gun-rights advocates hold all the cards in this political dialogue. AGAIN. The government and the gun-rights lobbying groups do not respect us. They are again completely unwilling to make ANY kind of compromise on this issue, and pretend that they are patriots protecting liberty with their insistent 'cold, dead hands' rhetoric.

So if you feel more sympathy for the poor, beleaguered gun-rights folks who have all of the rights than those of us who don't have an interested lobbying group on our behalf, so be it. But really, those poor, threatened gun-rights advocates run the table, and you know it.

208. Here's a chart.

79. There's that NRA

talking point again: "I used to think it was perfectly fine for the government to do things like take away guns because I didn't like guns and I didn't want them anywhere near me."

Not one single person in a position to introduce, vote on, or debate legislation aimed at gun control has ever even mentioned taking all guns away. That is an NRA myth aimed at introducing fear of the "jack booted" government in order to bolster their membership of crazies, and attract Koch Brothers sponsorship money. The majority of DU members feel the same way.

What is happening now, after the pubic has had enough of the carnage, is that sensible gun owners, and the majority on the non-gun owning people in the USA, are calling for stricter gun control. That will include the tight control of certain rapid fire weapons, registration of all guns, and requiring background checks for all gun sales -- including private sales. The NRA and its lunatic followers will fight these initiatives with all of the money the Koch Brothers can give them, but we can, and will, beat them. The pendulum has begun to swing toward sanity about gun control.

85. I don't read what the NRA puts out, but I do read DU.

92. I talk to DU-ers every day

and yes, there are a few who are calling for a total ban on all guns, but not that many in the general scheme of things. They are in fact, evened out by the NRA/Gungeoneers who are calling for no regulation ("cold, dead hands") whatsoever. The smart money is on strict, but fair, legislation which will be aimed at responsibility and accountability as determined by a majority of reasonable Americans. As I pointed out, no one in a position to actually introduce or vote on gun control legislation has called for the total banning of guns.

The 2nd Amendment, and even Heller, does not prohibit the strict regulation and control of who can have a gun, what they can use it for, where they can "keep" it, or where they can "bear" it. There will be howls from the right-wing NRA/Gungeon crowd, but our country is being torn apart by gun violence, and it needs to stop. Less guns, and less availability to guns, is the answer.

104. And what do you think the OP is espousing?

107. I just re-read the post

and it appears to me that the OP has discovered that the NRA lies (no surprise for many of us), and that there is a need for more regulation. I couldn't find one reference in the OP to "taking away all guns."

117. I see it as calling a spade a spade...

Pointing out that "guns = murder, every time" is not a call for the total ban of all guns, at least not to me. It IS a strong statement, and one I believe that needs to be made in order to counter the NRA's "more guns are the answer." More guns = more gun violence, and where does it end?

Passions are high on both sides of this issue, but I think that it's good thing that the gun control contingent is finally becoming passionate enough to voice their opinions -- as loudly and often as they can. If there is anything that would be helpful to ban, it would be the corporate right-wing influence that the NRA has over too many politicians from both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish that would be to vote their favored politicians out of office.

Incidentally, keep in mind that it was the exact same right-wing 5-4 SCOTUS traitors which gave us Citizens United, and Heller, making it two out of two for the neoconservative right-wingers.

118. Keep murder legal but regulated?

121. Wow!

I don't see how you gleaned that from anything either I, or the OP said. How in the hell can you "keep murder legal" when it never has been? Murder is murder, and guns contribute greatly to the number and frequency of murders in this country. Regulating guns more stringently will hopefully help to reduce the number of murders made possible by the current state of easy access to guns by almost anyone.

I don't mind discussing this with you rationally, but please don't go all Gungeon on me here and attribute things to me that I didn't say or even imply. Yes I want to see much stronger regulation and control of guns. No I don't want to see a total ban on ALL weapons -- just the ones which were designed specifically for military use, and serve absolutely no purpose in civilian hands except to kill other civilians.

125. I don't see how you interpret guns = murder every time into

128. Oh, I see what you did there.

Yes, that would be a logical conclusion if that were indeed what the OP meant literally, but somehow I don't think that it was. If that is what you really want to take away from the OP's message, that is your absolute right and I will not bother you anymore.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that there is some background here that I am totally unaware of, and I really don't want to antagonize you any further.

143. I'm starting to love this place where dissenting opinions are so very welcome.

176. If you can still read this "Bubba"

enjoy your pizza, but I have no doubt that you'll be back. I believe that this is at least your second or third incarnation as a professional troll, but you know what? You twits are fun to play with...

149. It wouldn't be all that strange...I have lots of batshit nuts friends.

By the way, I was shooting guns when most of the antigun pearl-clutchers around here were just gleams in the milkman's eye.
Not one of them ever jumped up and started firing by itself, or injured one single person. Varmints and a few deer were not quite so lucky.

155. And you know what Bubba, I get the feeling that you're a plant too.

153. Ooh, a REAL veteran. My, my, aren't you special Bubba?

Now run along and play with your NRA/Gungeon right-winger buddies and tell each other heroic war stories about how you're going to protect us from our scary old Liberal government with your big old guns.

178. "Calling for no regulation whatsoever"

151. maybe being more specific than 'guns' would allow you to form an argument

And then I decided it is better to not alienate gun owners from their government because having that many people despise government is more dangerous than gun deaths.
My way of life depends on a society that respects government.

your way of life depends on a society that WORSHIPS guns but DOESN'T respect them.

if a woman can choose what to do with her body then why can't two women (lesbians, get it)?

58. Guns = murder Every time

If it were even remotely factual, there would have been, at minimum, 300,000,000 murders in the US since its inception.

There have been guns in my family going back three generations. Not a one has ever been so much as brandished in anger.

Talk about the NRA being over the top with it's talking points...

By all means, lets have an intelligent discussion on guns. There are far too many of the wrong kinds, accessible to the wrong people.

By all means, lets get rid of assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines that serve no purpose in hunting, sport or self-defense. Lets check the hell out of people who want to acquire any kind of firearm. Lets stop the straw-man purchases and gun show loopholes.

But lets separate fact from fiction. There are strong people who will take advantage of the weak. Wielded properly, with training, guns can neutralize that advantage. I don't know how many times per year that actually happens, and I don't really care. If it happens even once, then possession of the defensive weapon is morally and legally justified. I won't let anyone deprive me of the right to preserve my own life and the lives of my family.

I'll give up my gun when everyone else, and that includes all the bad guys, give up theirs.

168. Excellent point. I'd never thought of it that way. But

I am reminded of something I'd learned a while back... the feudal Japanese Samurai were the only members of society who were allowed to carry weapons. So the peasants and farmers learned how to make weapons out of other things, like sticks and farm implements. And thus the martial arts were born.

70. "That's one reason why most people don't have one."

And that's certainly a choice that most people make.

I'm not too concerned about the statistics. My personal choice, and legal right, is to keep a handgun for defensive purposes. I'm OK with limits on magazine count and capacity. But I retain the moral option of choosing to defend my life, with lethal force if necessary, against someone who wants to rob me of it.

When society stops producing people who insist on violating the rights of others, then I'll stop owning one.

83. Not true for legal gun owners.

It is certainly true that violent criminals who also have guns are extremely high risk of gun accidents and of using the gun in anger. But ordinary, legal gun owners don't do that. Ordinary people don't fly into violent temper rages. Criminology is a very well studied field and it is well known that murder is almost never a person's first violent offense.

Suicide is a separate issue. Guns don't radiate a "kill yourself" mind control field. People become suicidal for various reasons and a gun is an efficent way of doing it. Without a gun they will simply choose an alternate means. Suicide was invented with the invention of guns.

A person who has lived a law-abiding life is very safe with a gun. Criminals aren't safe, either to be one or to live with one.

73. The theater shooting made me skeptical...

...and the grade school shooting was the last straw. I could not help noticing that a real rash of mass shootings happened after the AWB expired. Granted Columbine happened earlier as did the DC sniper case.

As far as the gun lobby goes, I knew they were lying when they demonized the UN small arms trafficking treaty. I realized then that they really do represent gun makers and not NRA members. Plus, I was disgusted by their association with Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, and Oliver North. They could have taken the lead following the CT shooting and defined the issues and laid out a plan of sensible action while still protecting the interests of their members. Instead we got "good guy with a gun." Jesus, really?

Unfortunately, however sound the logic seems, the evidence does not support the position that an armed society is safer from crime than an unarmed one. I still think that a person ought to consider being armed if he or she is in real danger of criminal assault--not everyone can fight off or run from an attacker or move out of a high crime area--but as a general proposition, unarmed societies are less likely to view violence as a solution to problems. As far as good guys with guns go, AFAIK, none of the mass shooters had records so their was no way to know they were "bad guys." Besides, Ft. Hood was a fucking army base full of armed soldiers! The shooting injuring Rep. Gifford and a killing a judge had Secret Service present.

It's the reaction time that prevents the NRA logic from being a reflection of reality. The "good guy with a gun" will either be target #1 or else will not have time to react before the bad guy can empty a 30-round magazine into a crowd.

Now, unlike the OP, I enjoy shooting as a hobby. I've shot a lot of paper targets. I don't hunt or carry concealed and have never had to threaten anyone, much less shoot anyone, alhamduallah. But those stick on paper targets that change color when shot--they're living on borrowed time. I'm a little concerned that new restrictions might cut into my hobby, but it is only a concern, not an obsession. If it happens--shrug--I'm sure I'll live.

86. The soldiers at Ft. Hood were not armed.

I have nine years active duty experience. Soldiers only carry guns and live ammo if the duty assignment specifically calls for it. Only the MPs were armed. The other soldiers were unarmed. The shooter was stopped by MPs with guns.

Rep. Gifford did not have Secret Service present. They only guard presidential candidates and presidents and vice presidents. They don't guard every member of Congress.

94. NPR

Had an excellent discussion with an expert. He was saying that statistics regarding what gun, shows up in what ever crime, are not allowed to be made public, because facts kill the NRA talking points everytime. They have legislated that the FBI, be hamsrung, in regard to information. Public information should at least be published to counter act the nuts at Faux. All the corporate broadcast meganoplies have a dog in this fight.

122. I've always been creeped out by guns, and probably more inclined towards greater regulation of them.

That said, until recently it hasn't been a front-burner issue for me, because I am ordinarily sympathetic to personal choice arguments (on issues like drugs, etc) and because I'm aware of the political considerations which have caused (in times past) our party to not press Gun Control as a Federal Issue.

Despite the huge media coverage devoted to them, crime statistics show that there is no upward trend in mass killings -- defined as having four victims or more, not counting terrorism -- since the 1970s, he said.

Campus shootings, such as the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, or the cluster of school shootings of the 1990s, including Columbine, often attract more attention than multiple killings in other settings.

At Virginia Tech, 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho took 32 lives in a solo shooting spree on the Blacksburg campus before killing himself.

In 1999 at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold killed 12 of their fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives in the school library.

But despite these high-profile cases, the chances of falling victim to a school or campus shooting are still incredibly slim, Fox said.

"Overall in this country, there is an average of 10 to 20 murders across campuses in any given year," he said. "Compare that to over 1,000 suicides and about 1,500 deaths from binge drinking and drug overdoses."

163. I understand the sentiment.....

...but guns do not always = murder. That's an overreaction. Of course the gun lobby lies, Taverner, but lets interject a bit of sanity to this discussion. What exactly are you advocating here? A full and complete ban on all firearms? Might make sense for you urbanites, who get the "creeps" from guns. In a heavily urbanized area, to me that's sensable. In the very rural area in which I live, a total ban doesn't make as much sense, but reasonable changes to current law are needed .

My suggestion is a total ban on semi-automatic weapons in all jurisdictions, both hand guns and long guns. Forget magazine size and assault weapons bans. That's just a knee jerk reaction based on what looks "scary." Instead of a 30 round magazine, 3 10 round mags work nearly as well and can be swapped in a matter of seconds. And not all serious firearms, from a firepower perspective, look "scary" to unfamiliar eyes.

Semi-auto is not a requirement for hunting or target shooting. It would not affect me as a hunter one bit. Yes, I do hunt since I refuse to outsource all my killing. In fact, I've been using the same 20 round box of 30-06 for 3 years now, for both hunting and sighting in my bolt action rifle. I have a box of 30-30 that's even older, since I don't use my lever action rifle all that much. The one common factor in all mass shootings is firepower. The ability to put a significant amount of lead down range quickly. A semi-auto ban eliminates that factor.

203. where and when did I ever say such a thing? in my imagination I am flying away from this nonsense.

207. My own 180 on guns happened when I left Boston

and moved to the high desert in the southern Rockies.

Back in Boston, I despised guns, all guns. I'd faced bad guys with them more than once and I hated the feeling. I never wanted to own one because I knew a lot of the guns the bad guys had were obtained in burglaries.

Out here, I realized that this country is still really wild, bears and cougars a common problem outside the cities and occasionally inside them. People in rural areas don't have Animal Control to call to get the bears out of the trash cans, they need their guns.

I have no problem with long guns that aren't made to hunt people.

I still hate pistols and semi auto guns. There is no reason for either in private hands.

214. Thank you taverner for a great post

I used to believe we could have a rational discussion with gun owners who considered themselves reasonable, at least the ones who say they only want a gun for hunting and one gun in their home for "self-defense." After living through hundreds of thousands of killings and reading thousands of "studies", newspaper editorials, posts, and comments from our elected officials, I no longer believe we will ever find common ground. After visiting Louisiana where every "debate" ended with the need for more guns, and how much safer we all would be if everyone was armed, I came home to Colorado to find pandemonium at gun shows and the CBI with a two-week backlog of 13,000 background checks and needing a half million dollars just to process the gun buys since the Newtown tragedy.
And in liberal, sane Boulder our local paper has a letter today from a woman who, after attacking our "transformational" President, says: "Sorry, frothing-at-the-mouth anti-gun nuts, but the Second Amendment has never been about duck hunting. It's the inalienable right of free people to defend themselves against despotic government (and lunatics). There's a term for countries where only the military and police have guns: Police State. They can be very safe places to live until the government comes for you."
My only hope now is that we will elect people who have the guts to stop listening to the specious arguments of gun lovers, stop taking money from the NRA and gun manufacturers, and stand up to pass laws which will stop this lunacy. I hope there are enough truly reasonable citizens who will back them.

229. i just noticed the OP's update. hmm.

12/30: This thread, so far, has shown the desperation of the gun supporters.

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear earphones...

232. Thanks, Taverner.

Anything less than abolishing the Second Amendment is just pretending to look busy.

That statement has gotten me banned, deleted, censored, and generally kicked out of all sorts of places in the last few weeks. I've never been keen on guns, but after Newtown happened just about twenty miles away from my town, where my daughter is in first grade, I am fully out against the 2nd Amendment and all its supporters - both the NRA hacks and the liberals who run in fear from any mention of the NRA, who tacitly support the NRA by ceding the issue immediately and demanding that I do the same.

Given the response I got at my first post yesterday, I was prepared to ditch DU as yet another nest of limp liberals and the right-wing trolls that feed on them. I still am, of course, thanks in large part to the tone of the replies to your post here. But it is nice to know that even here, there is someone (with enough posts that they won't just get dismissed as a sock puppet, as I was) willing to say it: guns are murder. Every time.